If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Sky.com)   UK Election Day discussion thread   (sky.com) divider line 597
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

2332 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 May 2005 at 12:59 AM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



597 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-05-05 07:40:45 AM
ElPresidente

Yeah. Thats how I always do it. That and getting a look from the officer because theres gravy on my polling card......... ;)

And, yeah, there are two incredibly positive things about this thread. So far, as has been said, no one has come out and said:

Your a dumbass for voting X

And also

Why are you insulting our government? You hate Britain.

questioning your leadership is part of the democratic process. they work for you not the other way round. If my boss started questioning what I did, i wouldnt start accusing him of hating the company (tenuous, but im in a hurry).

For a land that is under attack because other people hate your 'freedoms', they seem to be eroding away pretty quickly. Not intended as a troll, just an observation.
 
2005-05-05 07:42:38 AM
I'm leaving it best said by Private Eye in their latest issue:

 
2005-05-05 07:43:56 AM
isador

First-past-the-post isn't ideal, but I think it's better than PR. That natually leads to weak government, since it's rare anyone holds an outright majority. In short, not much can get done without striking deals with whoever you've struck an alliance with. Just look at Italy or the European Parilament for the mess this can cause, not to mention it giving a voice
to some very unpleasant factions of society.

For better or worse, the brutal system we have in place allows that government to get on with it for 4 or 5 years. If people don't like the result, they vote them out. No kludges, no fuss, no permanently hung parliament.
 
2005-05-05 07:46:51 AM
Jenthelibrarian:

Who should you vote for?

This is from the last edition of The Sun before polling:

PM still able to give his bird a bloody good seeing to - so why not vote for him


Ever time I look at the Sun it scares me. I used to think of them as the root of all evil, now they support the same people I do.



They've even picked up the subliminal "vote Labour, get a Blair/Brown team for a while then just Brown" message.

Lynton Crosby, eat your heart out.
 
2005-05-05 07:50:51 AM
randalf: First-past-the-post isn't ideal, but I think it's better than PR.

Use a system like they do in the regional assemblys in Wales and Scotland. You vote for your local MP, then also vote for a party in your region.

For example: If you vote for one party in the local seat because you like the guy, or because the party you really like has got no hope in hell of winning there, you can still vote for your actual preferred party in the regional seat, and if others do something similar, then bingo you've got someone you actually want in some sort of power.
 
2005-05-05 07:51:20 AM
KingZog "but once he was identified it was clear that he hadn't said what Gilligan claimed."

No. It was clear that Gilligan couldn't prove he had said what he had claimed. The fact that three post-factum reports later went on to vindicate the content of the statement that Gilligan attributted to his source doesn't come into it, I suppose.
 
2005-05-05 07:52:12 AM
I will be abstaining since I value my vote too much to give it to the best of the worst.
 
2005-05-05 07:52:41 AM
I saw the Charles Kennedy party broadcast(is that the right term?) yesterday on C-SPAN 2, and I really dug it. Why can't our political ads be that smart here across the pond?

[Looks at the electorate.]

Oh, yeah, that's why.....
 
2005-05-05 07:54:42 AM
The front page of the Mirror:



Hardly a surprise, but I thought everyone knew that vampires couldn't see their own reflection in the Mirror.
 
2005-05-05 07:56:01 AM
That's incorrect. The Electoral system is Weeners the post. That means that you could have 10% of the vote and as long as that's more than any other one party you're in which means the majority could vote against you and you win.

Which is dumb.


Why on Earth did Fark make f i r s t p a s t become weeners?
 
2005-05-05 07:58:08 AM
Another thing - the election date is 5/5/5. Any elections next year on Tuesday, 6/6/6? Satan should be informed.
 
2005-05-05 07:58:55 AM
So basically, the only reason he is going to win is the opposition is even worse?

Yup, that's about the size of it.

How come this got an interesting tag anyhoo? I would have given it asinine........ (I'm from the UK incidentally).

I'm exercising my right to not bother voting - whoever gets in will screw us, same as them all. But, for the record, blair is better than the rest - his election campaign has been about what he intends to do, everyone else's has been about what he's done in iraq - hint of desperation there methinks.

That's enough politics for me, i'm off for some boobies.
 
2005-05-05 08:02:10 AM
blair is better than the rest

Blair is better at what exactly?
 
2005-05-05 08:02:41 AM
Ewe:

but what's to stop me from voting at my original home (rushcliffe) by postal and then voting here as well?

A jail term?
 
2005-05-05 08:03:20 AM
2005-05-05 01:36:57 AM consdubya

In Germnay, they have it so that if a party gets over 5% of the national vote, even if they dont get enough in any particular electorate, they get a seat in parliament.

Actually, the US has one of the least representative systems in the civilised world....


Maybe America should adopt the German system. Germany has had terrific luck with letting radical fringe groups get their foot in the door of national office in the past.

/snickers
 
2005-05-05 08:04:43 AM
EyeballKid : I was about to scorn you for watching our Party Politicals when you don't have too... Then I remember that I'd just finished reading John Stewart's "America". I guess other people's political systems are always more interesting than your own.

(Having said that, I'm soooo glad we don't have the American system here. Or America's politicians. Or the fact that you pretty much have to be a multi-millionaire to have a chance of getting elected to Congress. Having said that, we had something similar to Alabama's "Ban Gay Books" bill under the last Tory government. Just another reason they're lower than vermin).
 
2005-05-05 08:05:05 AM
Gavino:
KingZog "but once he was identified it was clear that he hadn't said what Gilligan claimed."

No. It was clear that Gilligan couldn't prove he had said what he had claimed. The fact that three post-factum reports later went on to vindicate the content of the statement that Gilligan attributted to his source doesn't come into it, I suppose.


Check out the quote from Hutton I posted. The 45 minute claim was from a SIS report, and the Goverment published it in good faith. The problem is that Gilligan said they knew at the time it was untrue, which he didn't have any evidence for. In fact I've never seen any evidence for that, and it seems implausible to me given that Goverment would have known how risky it was to lie about this sort of thing when they were making a case to a public which was basically anti war.
 
2005-05-05 08:06:24 AM
meekychuppet

Blair is better at what exactly?

Being less worse?

Possessing an offensive wife in a built-up area?

Being a Conservative?

Dodging bullets?

/So many possibilities
//That's why he's a politican
 
2005-05-05 08:06:57 AM
randalf - true, but PR would help prevent any government from forcing through legislation that the majority of people are opposed to.

It woudl also lead to MP's paying more attention to what the people in their constituencies and voting with their conciences, rather than following the whip.

Having a hung parliament IS time consuming and slightly fudgy - but it's fairer.

Roughly 8.5million people voted conservative last time, and 10 million voted for labour. Labour ended up with over 400 seats and the tories 166. How can that be democratic?

Besides - as you say - a govt holds on for 5 years - brings in legislation that the majority don't want, so they vote them out. The next govt changes the legsislation back again, taking up time and resources along the way. You've ended up at point zero again, and it's taken years to do a full circle. And PR is Fudgy?

I also cannot beleieve that When I wrote FPTP in full it changed it to weeners. That's Crap.
 
2005-05-05 08:07:59 AM
EricB:

like they show the conservatives far to the right, and liberal democrats more to the left, why not be normal and call the right conservatism and the left liberalism? make too much sense?

From dictionary.com:

"liberalism

n 1: a political orientation that favors progress and reform 2: an economic theory advocating free competition and a self-regulating market and the gold standard"


Conservatism != right wing
Liberalism != left wing

Just to confuse you even further:

In some places liberals are right wing, and conservativers are left wing. In some places liberals are really conservatives, and vice versa. A liberal desires progress and reform, is open-minded to changes, a conservative wants things to stay as they are, is resistant to changes. In theory, a liberal who lives in a liberal country is in reality a conservative. In the US a liberal is someone who wants social and political liberalism, while a conservative is someone who wants business liberalism, while conserving traditional views and values (sometimes it seems like the "conservatives" wants reform more than the "liberals"). Both parties are liberal in some ways. The US happens to be one of the most liberal countries in the world, while at the same time leaning towards the right. In Europe, liberals are politically closer to the american conservatives (except for the moral values, christianity, and all that other crazy stuff), while most european countries are leaning towards the left (in comparison to the US, at least).
 
2005-05-05 08:14:36 AM
Spot the difference:

Cherie Blair:


Media centre at Lord's Cricket Ground, London:


/They've never been seen together, either
 
2005-05-05 08:18:38 AM
KingZog

Regarding that picture you posted earlier:




One of the posters at B3ta did a rather good parody of it earlier:

Here (I've linked it so as not to hurt his bandwidth. Link should pop)
 
2005-05-05 08:19:38 AM
Proportional representation is the way forward. Having a majority party that can do as they wish for four years is not a good situation. I come from Britain but have lived in many other European countries with PR, the quality of life is better.
 
2005-05-05 08:19:48 AM
Hmm so if the opposition wins, both the prime minister of Australia and the UK will have the same surname... the resulting confusion will definately ensure only one of them will ever be remembered by history ... (and cause many many future kids to lose a mark in history class)
I like it
 
2005-05-05 08:21:35 AM
ElPresidente
Niiiiice!
 
2005-05-05 08:22:22 AM
I'm in a Lib-Dem constituency, where it's a two horse race between them and the Tories. I'm actually a Labour supporter, but voting tactically to keep the snide inbred Tory biatch out.

Even if the lib-dems won't win, having a tree-party system forces the main parties to consider the third party's policies as they can swing the result. It's actually quite a powerful influence.

Off to vote after lunch..
 
2005-05-05 08:22:52 AM
Is the Party for the Right to Party Party running again this year?
 
2005-05-05 08:26:51 AM
President of the United States

[ x ] George W. Bush [Republican]
[ x ] John Kerry [Democrat]
[ ] Michael Badnarik [Libertarian]
[ ] David Cobb [Green]

Go Bush-Kerry! Yeah!
 
2005-05-05 08:27:46 AM
 
2005-05-05 08:27:49 AM
As an American and someone who's seen Parliament on C-Span my view of English Politics is the following.

"YOU SIR! ARE A MORON!"



/got nothin'
//I'm a moron
/// slash whore
 
2005-05-05 08:28:53 AM
I should probably stop posting Gilligan stuff, but I just found this

Gilligan is largely critical of Blairs reasons for going to war, rather than the war itself. Right war, wrong reasons he says:

More than anything else, what discredited the war was the rush to conflict, the need to claim Iraq as a pressing danger. From this need stemmed all the Governments most famous tabloid half-truths and non-truths. No one I know ever doubted that Saddam had WMD, or could rebuild them quickly. It was a perfectly fair inference to draw from his behaviour, even, if it now seems to have been wrong. But no expert, spook, or politician I ever met, apart from a few New Labour androids, believed Iraqs WMD were a threat current and serious enough to require military action in March 2003.


Which is fair enough - the problem was that they oversold the case badly. But overactive PR by Campbell is a much less serious charge than Tony Blair telling lies, or launching an illegal war.
 
2005-05-05 08:28:58 AM
meekychuppet

The party with over 50% of the MPs in parliament is the government, and their party leader is the Prime Minister. If no party has over 50%,...

That's incorrect. The Electoral system is Weeners the post. That means that you could have 10% of the vote and as long as that's more than any other one party you're in which means the majority could vote against you and you win.

Actually, you're wrong. The electoral system for a constituency candidate/MP is Weeners the post, so the candidate for a particular area needs only get more than the others. However (and this is where you have it wrong) to rule a party needs to have over 50% of the parliament, or a coalition needs to be in place or the queen chooses (in extreme cases).

It is possible that the ruling party only get 10% of the vote and somehow get 50% of parliament and thus rule, but within the house of commons a majority is generally needed.
 
2005-05-05 08:30:38 AM


Edmund: Well, according to `Who's Who', his interests include flogging servants, shooting poor people, and the extension of slavery to anyone who hasn't got a knighthood.
George: Excellent! Sensible policies for a happier Britain!


/just thought the thread needed more Blackadderification
 
2005-05-05 08:31:59 AM
Oi! Drew, you muppet! What's up with "f i r s t p a s t" being turned into "Weeners"? Sheesh!!!
 
2005-05-05 08:35:09 AM
KingZog
overactive PR by Campbell is a much less serious charge than Tony Blair telling lies, or launching an illegal war.

True, however it's not the PR campaign that's the problem, it's that the same spin went to parliament, and the blatant misrepresentation of the legal advice given by the attorney general, the weird turnaround in said attorney general's position and a load of other factors that are the issue.

Regardless of even the war, Blair is a proven liar. A promise on his first manifesto said they wouldn't start charging fees to university students. What was one of Labour's first actions in power?

there are other examples. "New" Labour in general and blair in particular have been dishonest all along, and also very cavalier about ignoring public opinion and about the process of democracy.

/thinks the whip ought to be banned
//also thinks we need an alternative to party politics.
///thinks nearly all politicos are lying weasels
////voted Lib Dem this morning
 
2005-05-05 08:35:48 AM
Inspired by El Presidente's pic of Cherie's gob, here's my take on the relative hotness of the leaders' wives:

Mrs. Blair - Aaaargh. It's hideous. Pasty skin and an oddly mis-shapen mouth. Atrocious dress-sense. You're a braver man than I am Tony.

Mrs. Howard - Despite being easily the oldest of the bunch, looks the most attractive and best dressed of the 3 ladies. If I'm shagging anything half as presentable when I'm 63, I'll be a happy man.

Mrs. Kennedy - It's a beast. I know she's just had a baby, but she's as shapely as a sack of spuds and has the same jowly jawline as her husband. Could keep Trinnie & Susannah in work for years. The Forth Bridge of makeovers.

As Peter Snow would say, it's all just a bit of fun. Don't let any of the above influence your vote.
 
2005-05-05 08:37:58 AM
ElPresidente

yes, that's annoying, was wondering what had happened. Erm, anyone know in what way is first_past a dirty word?
 
2005-05-05 08:39:25 AM
In New Zealand we have the Westminster model of government (though no upper house). We've combined that with the German voting system (you vote for a preferred party as well as a local MP) - the upshot of which is that we have seven parties in our 120 seat parliament. Every government is a coalition government. The thing is, the parties in parliament, while covering a broad spectrum, are basically split into two camps and every election a smaller party becomes the king-maker - negotiating with each bloc for a better deal.

We have an election this year, too.

/Doubt if we'll get a Fark thread, though.
 
2005-05-05 08:42:58 AM
Gothnet: anyone know in what way is first_past a dirty word?

Are you sure you din't type post instead of past?
 
2005-05-05 08:47:36 AM
Back to the press deference shown to our beloved leader Mr Blair. The full interview is as The Gruniad, but here is the opening question, which should give you a taster:

Paxman: Hello, welcome to the second of three interviews with the leaders of the three big parties, who want our votes on May 5. On Friday, it's Michael Howard; this evening I'm in Leeds with the prime minister, Tony Blair. Prime Minister, is there anything you would like to apologise for?


And, bearing in mind that Blair is a catholic:

Paxman: Do you agree that condoms prevent the spread of Aids?

Blair: Yes, I do.

Paxman: Would you be prepared to tell the Pope that?


The innterview also contained Paxman's visible derision that the PM was completely unable to give any sort of estimate for the number of illegal immigrants.

Incidently, Jeremy Paxman once asked Michael Howard - then Home Secretary, now leader of the opposition - the same question fourteen times in a row when he tried to wriggle out of answering it.

There is a long tradition in the UK of the press giving politicians a hard time. My favourite was Brian Redhead responding giving The Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson's suggestions that he was a Labour supporter with a request for a minute's silence "while you compose an apology for daring to suggest you know how I exercise my vote and I shall reflect on the death of your monetary policy." Redhead, it transpired after his death, was a voter for the same party as Lawson's.
 
2005-05-05 08:47:48 AM
Zorba_the_Geek

Nope, pretty sure I was writing "first_past the post".

Maybe it doesn't like the words first and post in too close proximity to each other.

Except then that sentence would trigger it, and it hasn't. Hmmm.
 
2005-05-05 08:52:02 AM
I didn't realize Mrs. Blair looks like Rachel Dratch from SNL.
 
2005-05-05 08:54:22 AM
a Weeners
e First Pest
i Boobies
o Boobies
u Boobies
y First Pyst

just checking my theory of vowels.....
 
2005-05-05 08:55:32 AM
thisispete: /Doubt if we'll get a Fark thread, though


You say that as though it's a bad thing.
 
2005-05-05 08:55:48 AM
so P(a|i|o|u)st in conjunction with first is bad....
 
2005-05-05 08:57:24 AM
pmc666, I loved your post. I'm a big fan of Paxman's and can't understand why some people dislike his agressive interview style. They argue that he's disrespecting the office of Prime Minister but, I'd argue that by trying to hold the PM to account, he's doing exactly the opposite.

What I do know for sure, is that if he ever interviewed Bush in that style, he'd never be seen or heard of again.... :P
 
2005-05-05 09:03:56 AM
RichieXP:

What I do know for sure, is that if he ever interviewed Bush in that style, he'd never be seen or heard of again.... :P

I, for one, would give my left gonad to watch Paxman give Bush a damn good verbal seeing-to.........
 
2005-05-05 09:06:37 AM
The Paxman grilling of Michael Howard - enjoy:

javascript:launchAVConsoleStory('4195849','news','ukfs')
 
2005-05-05 09:08:25 AM
Bugger - didn't work. Click on the third one down in this link:

http://newssearch.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?q=paxman+howard&scope=ne wsukfs_av&tab=news_av&x=66&y=18
 
2005-05-05 09:08:33 AM
Crunchy Frog:

I, for one, would give my left gonad to watch Paxman give Bush a damn good verbal seeing-to.........

I always enjoy when American politicians get interviewed over here. Do you remember when Clinton was plugging his new book and was interviewed by (correct me if I'm wrong) David Frost? I recall seeing Clinton get angrier and angrier during the interview because of the hard, direct questions he was being asked. Poor guy :P

And I certainly don't feel any sympathy for politicans over here getting a tough time. The leader's special of Question Time was fantastic and really put them all under pressure. I especially enjoyed seeing Tony fight for his life against a hostile audience.
 
Displayed 50 of 597 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report